Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/832/2016

A.L. Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	832 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	30.09.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	06.12.2016

 

 

 

Amrit Lal Garg, H.No.225, First Floor, Sector 15-A,Chandigarh

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.     M/s Lenovo (I) Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level-2, Doddenakundli Village, Marathahali, Outer Ring Road, K.R.Puram, Hobli, Banglore-560037, Karnatka, India.

 

2.     Sh.Arvind Vashist, Incharge Lenovo Service Center, SCO No.26, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh

 

3.     Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO No.1012-13, Sector-22-B, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH.RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

                SH.RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

                SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued By:Complainant in person.

  OPs exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

 

                  In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile set make Lenovo 5000 vide Invoice dated 14.09.2015 for Rs.8100/-, having warranty of one year.  It has been alleged that soon after two months of its purchase, the same started giving problem of hanging up and the touch screen was not working. On his complaint to OP No.2 on 06.05.2016, the touch screen of the mobile phone was changed.   It has been averred that after two months of its repair, the touch screen of the mobile phone again became defective and he approached the service center who told him that the touch screen needed to be changed but he refused to get it changed on second time and he requested the service center to replace same with a new one of the same make and model as the same was under warranty.  However, Mr.Arvind Vashisht, Incharge of the Service Center gave him the numbers of S.Malkiat Singh, Lenovo Zonal Service Manager and Sh.Iqbal Singh, another Lenovo Zonal Service Manager. It has further been averred that he sent the mobile bill through whatsapp to the Zonal Service Manager of the Company but thereafter no response was received. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Parties failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.11.2016.
3.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.
4.         We have heard the complainant, in person, and have also perused the record.
5.         In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered his self-attested affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint alongwith the documents. He has also placed on record a copy of the invoice vide which he purchased the mobile phone in question from OP No.3.  He has also placed on record a copy of the job sheet dated 17.08.2016 vide which he approached the service center of the OPs with the problem of hanging and display in the mobile phone in question. The complainant has specifically deposed in his affidavit that the touch screen of the mobile phone in question became again defective after its replacement which itself sufficient to conclude that there is some major defect in the mobile phone in question. We, thus, deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case that no useful purpose would be served by directing the OPs again to repair/replace the product in question because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product. If the replaced/repaired product develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous for him.
6.         It is apposite to mention here that  the OPs despite due service through registered post did not care to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.   
7.         Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the OPs are directed to refund the price of the mobile handset in question i.e. Rs.8100/- to the complainant with lump sum compensation of Rs.4,000/-, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the awarded amounts to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment.
8.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06.12.2016  

Sd/-

                                                           (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER